A recent thread included the phrase “Again, I really don’t know what this tank does… but it looks nice and industrial!” That got my attention because this is one of the key things intimidating me as I plan my first layout-- the realism of my industries. I’m pretty much a desk jocky, so it would not be beyond my potential for ignorance to build an industry that, upon further inspection, is missing a MAJOR component of whatever makes that industry work.
“Hey, that’s a nice plastics plant. Wouldn’t it be nice if it had the requisite tanks for storing xyz that would allow them to actually make some plastic.” [D)]
What’s the consensus on this? Obviously some people model realism to the nth degree. So factor that out of your answer. For example, if you’re someone who generally models to a very high standard of realism, do you find yourself extending proportionate or disproportionate realism to the construction your industries?
Being guilty of that quote, I’ll toss in my two cents…
If you’re modeling a prototype facility, you’ve got no worries. Just build what’s there.
If you’re semi-freelancing like me, it’s tougher… For example, I have a coal mine that I know is missing some key structures (boiler house, showers, explosives shed, etc.), but there wasn’t room for all of it. A nice Quonset hut compliments the mine structure as a “catch all.” In other words, that hut could be any of the above (except maybe the boiler house).
My Juniata Machine Tool company has some stacks and ventilators on the roof… No idea what they do, only that they look good.
I do my research to the nth degree on Pennsy equipment. I haven’t found the time or resources yet to do that level of research on the industries it serve
Hey, you’re new here, so first of all welcome aboard!
That’s one of the things that this forum does very well. There was a thread a few months back about breweries - what they took in, how often, how they stored it, and so on. Now, I personally go through more beer than your average Mormon congregation, but I still learned a lot about that industry from that thread.
For some of us, the research and the attention to detail is part of the fun. Others are happy running trains on the Plywood Central. One of the most commonly-heard phrases is “It’s your railroad,” so whatever you want to do is fine. And if someone looks at your industry and starts telling you how wrong it is, ask him (or her) how to make it right. Take some notes, do a bit more research and upgrade your layout. Remember, another one of those phrases is “A layout is never finished.”
My take: if it looks good, throw it in there (within reason). I am currently working on a oil facility. I know that it is way off of prototype, but I like it. It only has three tanks, a pumphouse, and two tracks.
The first thing that you’ll discover is that any modern industry that has rail service will be huge - way too big to model in complete detail unless you either devote the entire layout to it or have a 5000 square foot train room and model in N or Z scale.
Some of the tricks John Armstrong (and others) suggested:
Spur disappears behind trackside trees or a low hill. Smokestack(s) on the backdrop. Yup, there’s an industry back there.
1 inch thick slice of building at the edge of the aisleway, with the industry siding in front of it. The ‘virtual’ rest of the facility is in the aisleway. (One variant I saw had a three story building trackside - with a control panel built into the back of it.)
Shipping and receiving building trackside. Rest of the plant was a photo-mural on the backdrop. (Photo of a real facility is guaranteed to have all the proper details!)
And an observation. In a present-day industrial park, the major structures tend to be plain-jane concrete bricks, of uniform or very similar design. Roof-mounted details might vary, but only an expert could tell for sure. Only the signage gives a clue to what’s going on in there.
Unless you really want to create an exactly detailed representation of (fill in the blank,) use the shortcuts and free up layout space for other things.
As long as you capture the flavor of the industry, then you’re doing good, as far as I am concerned.
What bothers me are people that can’t even capture the flavor but still get “good model”, or “excellent scene”. This includes some that appear in our esteemed magazines.
Dave; for a powder building, take an old boxcar (actually, a old ice reefer would be better). Bury it on one side and two ends. Cover as much of the other side as you can with dirt but still leave the doors operable. You can use timbers as retaining walls if you want. Bury the top with one or two feet of dirt.
In front of the car, where you left the doors free, build up a berm or bulwark such that if you were standing in front you couldn’t see the door from any angle, but leave enough space so people can get in and out of the car to load, unload explosives.
Once properly lined with wood, this would be acceptable short term storage for Class A explosives or less for the time frame up to mid 70’s, if I remember right. The thing to remember is that undeground hard rocks mines go through a lot of explosives, and most of it is stored underground in places local to where they need it. Surface storage was usually sufficient to hold a delivery until they can get it underground. I don’t think an underground coal mine would consume as much explosives, so a smaller, buried container might work, such as a 20 foot container if that is in your period.
The point is, protect Class explosives (such as caps) from accidental detonation from rifle rounds, and if you do get a detonation, make the blast go up, no out.
Surface mines use a lot more explosives, so they have much more extensive storage areas.
Since I have a small layout I know nothing will be remotely as big as I’d like it to be and because of that the details won’t be as good as I’d like them to be. As long as I know what’s going on and can tell someone about what I have I’ll be happy. I’m just excited to get started and see what kind of skills I have or don’t have.
I go for more of a representational rather than 100% realistic look. For example I’m building a steelmill on my layout but to model all the countless support buildings and stockpiles would eat up the entire layout and then some so I had to compromise and model the main structures and simulate the rest as being off layout. This is why selective compression and staging was invented.
My personal bugaboo is “paralysis by analysis” - I’m not ready to start until I know enough to begin, but that never happens because I might find out something else important to know!
Go to your local hobby shop and see if they have some buildings marked “Brewery” or “Chemical Plant” or “Pickles” or “Scissors Factory”. These are undoubtedly missing many major components (and are too small to require a bunch of boxcars daily), but they do look about right as a first-guess fill-in. Later on - and you have your whole lifetime to work on it; model railroading does not expire - you can put together a building with all the necessary components in the right proportions. You can always find an industrial area somewhere around town and take pictures, then build what you see.
In the meantime, to steal a phrase, on the cover of the book, written in its famously friendly script, is the word, “RELAX”.
The model press and media now show such highly developed models and layouts. Ready to run models are such a high standard. How can those of us established in the hobby hope to keep up? Even worse for beginners. (By the way [#welcome][#welcome][#welcome])
Again, we are not helped by living in a competative “winning is all” culture. This is a hobby though. We’re supposed to relax and enjoy it not flog ourselves to death getting to number 1.
Then again, we should recall that top flight athletes put in masses of practice. A Gold medal runner didn’t start yesterday. He/She will have lost many races, spent hours in day in weeks etc training. They will almost certainly ha